Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People always say about vigilance - or being surveyed ...I have nothing to hide..record me- spy on me- do what you want because I don't give a damn - I am a law biding good person....so film away...........No cop should be afraid of being filmed....They are OUR employees...does a boss not have the right to take a picture of his workers or have a peek into the shop to see how work is progressing? Procedure is one thing...individual discretion is another...The problem here to be honest after thinking it over...If the dog owner would have been more diligent and focused on his own responsibilities - He would have taken the time to make sure the windows of the car were such that the dog could not get out.
The dog owner was so intensely interested in interacting with the cops that he rushed over to get involved and did not fully secure the dog...I blame this fully on the owner...who was being a jerk...and being a jerk was more important to him than the care of his pet.
I'd rep you if I could. It was the owner's responsibility to secure the dog first. He owed that to the dog. It's not reasonable to expect the officers to give a Rottweiler the benefit of a doubt when they are in the process of taking the dog's owner into custody. This was a very unpredictable situation for the dog. In the heat of the moment, the officer made a call. Good or bad, the situation never would have happened if the dog had been secured by his owner.
I feel for the dog but people watching this video need to remember that they are not subject to the emotions going on at the time that influence the decisions being made. It's easy to be an arm chair quarterback and see other possibilities but we weren't there. We know what it looks like to us, viewing the video from the safety of our own homes, but we don't know what it looked like through the eyes of the officer who shot the dog who was there dealing with an animal he did not know. It is the dog's owner who let his pet down by putting him in this situation.
And you have to admit, most dogs are better than some people.
Unfortunately, a dog off his leash while his owner is being arrested is also unpredictable. I'm not sure how this could have ended any other way. Some have suggested that the cops should have ordered the owner to take control of the dog....REALLY??? You're going to order someone being arrested to take control of a dog that he could just as easily order to attack? It's unfortunate for the dog but it is the owner who failed his pet by failing to secure him in the vehicle in the first place. The dog would perceive what was going on as an attack on his owner and would be unpredictable in such a situation.
A little old lady wouldn't have put handcuffs on the owner making it impossible for him to control his dog.
As for the cops, I didn't see this man do anything illegal, so why did they go after him?
Anyone who wants to be a cop has mental issues and should never be trusted with a firearm.
That's an incorrect analogy. The little old lady would have been the one getting the handcuffs. In any event, it doesn't matter who the police are arresting, why the police are arresting that person, or whether the police had a legitimate reason to make the arrest. This is about the dog and what it was doing (or did).
[as I stated previously, the dog was shot because the officer was being attacked by the dog]
Just like you, Dumbass Dog Dude had no idea what was going on - he only saw an opportunity to harass the cops.
Cops assigned to perimeter/containment were diverted because of one clueless @sshole.
Pul in them horns. I didn't attack you. You can disagree with me all you like, but I am fed up with people who can't voice an opinion, without trying to insult someone with a differing one.
And, my opinion stands, regardless of whatever dumbass differences we have.
Oh, it all sounds very knowledgeable, your assessment of the operation. How a draw in "perimeter security" caused a shift in the scenerio etc. (Sigh) Thing is, they didn't even have to do a thing with this guy. Just let it alone. He was an annoyance, nithing more. But, they let him dig in like a tick. The ...operational shift.., as it were, was when tbese cops let him distract them. If they were in perimeter security, then thats where they nedded to be, not causing a whole new incident, with shots fired, because some clown yanked their chain.
Think about that, as it correlates to the rant you threw at me. If them being merely distracted by this Bozo, was a critical drain on the situation, well, turns out they were now COMPLETELY out if the fight, anchored to the new situation they just created.
Because they wanted to roust an annoying idiot, they jeapordizex brother officers, and bystanders, lives. If we are going to view this from the angle of the original call to the scene, and what every officer job on scene was, tbats how I assess their performance. Off playing grabassky games, creating a serious issue out of a minor annoyance. Call that my dumbass opinion. There I did it for you. With that taken care of, maybe you can concentrate better and write more civil responses. For the record, I rather dislike heated exchanges of opinions. They are always counterproductive and can be exhhaustive.
It became illegal when Dog Dude's brain fart interfered with the cops' ability to handle the armed robbery stand-off they were dealing with at the time.
If the lousy pigs had just let the man go(he was cuffed) and let him subdue the dog, this would have ended much differently, but some just like to kill things.
Unfortunately, a dog off his leash while his owner is being arrested is also unpredictable. I'm not sure how this could have ended any other way. Some have suggested that the cops should have ordered the owner to take control of the dog....REALLY??? You're going to order someone being arrested to take control of a dog that he could just as easily order to attack? It's unfortunate for the dog but it is the owner who failed his pet by failing to secure him in the vehicle in the first place. The dog would perceive what was going on as an attack on his owner and would be unpredictable in such a situation.
You failed to get the point. It is worth repeating.
WAS THE OWNER ASKED TO EITHER BE QUIET OR LEAVE (IF HE COULD NOT)? WAS HE? THE ANSWER IS NO TO THE QUESTION. I find it amazing that some of you support such aggresive behavior. Seriously. Are some of you from the former USSR?
Sadly, there have been far too many stories like this. At least this one is going viral and people are finally seeing the BS that happens with those that we pay to protect us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
